sign in sign up
<<
Home , Andrew Linzey

The servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood

The Reverend Dr. Andrew Linzey Centre for the Study of , England

after all. For example, few now share the conviction of Aquinas that only humans in creation are capable of rationality or intelligence in its broadest sense. Even fewer now share the enthusiasm of Descartes for the view that animals are automata, mechanisms utterly devoid of self-consciousness, and therefore incapable of feeling pain. An unmistakable sense of caution in this regard is registered by Robert Runcie, the Arch­ bishop of Canterbury, in a recent lecture. "[B]oth in theory and practice the boundaries of the human family are becoming unclear," he argues. Behind practical dilemmas, My suuting point is a question: In what way, if at all, are human beings unique in creation? In the past, there lies the theoretical difficulty of defining there have been almost too many answers to that question. what it is that decisively distinguishes the human A whole range of unique and crucial differences has from the non-human - a difficulty that been canvassed: humans alone have rationality, culture, increases as, for instance, naturalists detect in language; humans alone are persons, the possessors of non-human creatures subtleties ofbehaviour and an immortal soul; humans alone are self-conscious and complexities of communication which, until are solely capable of sentient existence. Humans alone recently, would have been thought unique and are capable ofpraising God and entering into relationship exclusive of humans.2 with the divine. There seems no end to the possibilities of uniqueness which humans can contemplate for Then there may be a question as to why humans find themselves when they compare themselves to other it necessary to place themselves in a distinct category species. The notion ofthe image ofGod has furthered an from animals. One of the conclusions of Desmond extensive uniqueness-searching anthropology which has Morris' popular book, ~ ~ Am;., which aroused dominated Christian tradition for centuries, irritating one most Christian commentators to complain, was his distinguished Hebrew scholar, James Barr, into denying that the notion ofthe image refers to anything tangible at all, referring to such attempts as "the blood-out-of-a-stone ", Andre. Linzey 1989 process."l There are atleast three reasons why theology should be suspicious of this uniqueness-spotting tendency. RELIGION The first and most obvious is that a good number of these differences have turned out to be not so unique

Summer 1990 109 The Servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood

insistence that our desire to be placed above the animals The truth they strove to bring home was that was itself a sign of insecurity. "Unfortunately, because the world God has given to his creatures, the we are so powerful and so successful when compared one world which they have to share, is in fact a with other animals, we fmd the contemplation of our different world to.each one of them, but that the humble origins somehow offensive, so that Ido not expect world each creature knows is equally true. We to be thanked for what I have done," he wrote. human beings, superior as we are, ought to be very humble because other creatures have other Our climb to the top has been a get-rich-quick truths which we can only dimly grasp, worlds story, and, like all nouveaux riches, we are very we can never fully enter. sensitive about our background. We are also in constant danger of betraying it3 He concludes with this question:

To these suspicions needs to beadded a third, namely And if this is so with regard to an ox or an ant, that the distinctions we have drawn have been frequently not to say a tree or a stone, how can we hope to and transparently self-serving, even selfish. Forexample, comprehend the God who comprehends them it seems to be altogether too convenient for Aristotle ­ all, to whom all worlds and truths are fully to take simply one example - to suppose that since known because he made them? 7 "nature makes nothing without some end in view," it must follow that nature has made all animals "for the This interesting question leads me again to my sake of man.'''' It has been so easy to turn this appeal to starting point Let me now frame the question in this the purpose of nature, and in subsequent Christian way. Is it possible to have a theological understanding of centuries to "divine purpose," into a justification for humans as unique which avoids the suspicions and doing what we like to animals that we have come to dangers ofself-service, insecurity, and moral denigration suspect the opposite is the true sequence. Aquinas, of what is different - not to mention a view which following Aristotle, appeals both to the order of nature might broadly be reconcilable with empirical evidence? and also to divine providence to assure us that "it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or IT in any other way whatever."s The difference-finding tendency in Western tradition has undoubtedly served I begin this second section by laying some stress on to minimize the moral standing of nonhuman creatures this word "theological." For it seems that many of the and to enable us to exploit them with a clear conscience. previous claims for human uniqueness have been One cannot be but bemused by the reference in the essentially naturalistic rather than theological. I mean by marriage service ofthe Book QfCommon emm to ''brute this that they have appealed to certain abilities, qualities, beasts that hath no understanding," since some, perhaps or capacities, such as rationality, or power, or self­ many, higher mammals seem to know more about consciousness, which are taken as determinative of what monogamous relationships than at least some members is uniquely human. Such attempts I want to suggest are of homo sapiens.6 In short: much of our uniqueness­ not theological in the strict sense of being things which spotting within the Christian tradition has been linked are grounded in the nature of God itself. Despite the directly or indirectly to the fostering of a low view of traveller in Oudamovia's not wholly unjust complaint animality, the traces of which are still found in our that "our understanding of God is even less adequate language about "brutes", "beasts," and "bestial"; even than our understanding of the life of our cat"8, it is here the word "animal" has become a libel-and not just on that there may be a way forward. human beings. Ifwe take the gospel narratives seriously, it may be In a little but significantbook oftheological fantasy, that there is at least one thing we can know. It seems entitled Travels in Oudamovia, John Austin Baker appropriate to describe this truth in the form ofa story. It describes the traveller's reaction to Oudamovian life and is from Helen Waddell's Peter Abelard. Peter, you may worship, which was characterized by a friendly non­ recall, had been made to suffer a terrible injustice from exploitive relationship with animals: people who had taken the law into their own hands. In

Between the Species 110 Summer 1990 The Servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood

this passage, Peter is walking close to a wood with his will. But what would have been the use? All friend, Thibault. this,' he stroked the limp body, 'is because of us. But all the time God suffers. More than 'My God,' said Thibault. 'what's that?' we do.' From somewhere near them in the woods Abelard looked at him, perplexed. a cry had arisen, a thin cry, of such intolerable 'Thibault. when did you think of all this?' anguish that Abelard turned dizzy on his feet, Thimult's foce stiffened. 'It was that night,' and caught at the wall. he said, his voice strangled. 'The things we did 'It's a child's voice,' he said. '0 God, are to poor Guibert He -' Thimult stopped. 'I they at a child?' could not sleep for nights and nights. And then 'A rabbit.' said Thibault. He listened. I saw that God suffered too. And I thought that 'There's nothing worrying it It'll be in a trap. I would like to be a priest.' Hugh told me he was putting them down. 'Thibault. do you mean Calvary?' Christ!' The scream came yet again. Thibault shook his head. 'That was only a Abelard was beside him, and the two piece of it - the piece that we saw - in time. plunged down by the bank... '0God', [Abelard] Like that' He JX>inted to a fallen tree beside was muttering. 'Let it die. Let it die quickly.' him, sawn through the middle. 'That dark ring But the cry came yet again. On the right, there, it goes up and down the whole length this time. He plunged through the thicket of the tree. But you only see where it is cut of hornbeam. across. That is what Christ's life was; the bit 'Watch out,' said Thibault, thrusting past of God that we saw. And we think God is like him. 'The trap might take the hand off you.' that. because Christ was like that. kind and The rabbit stopped shrieking when they forgiving sins and healing people. We think stooped over, either from exhaustion, orin some God is like that for ever, because it happened lastextremity offear. Thibault held the teeth of once with Christ But not the pain. Not the the trap apart, andAbelard gathered up the little agony at the last We think that stopped.' creature in his hands. It lay for a moment Abelard looked at him, the blunt nose breathing quickly, then in some blind and the wide mouth, the honest troubled eyes. recognition of the kindness that it met at the He could have knelt before him. 'Then, last, the small head thrust and nestled against Thibault.' he said slowly, 'you think that all his arm, and it died. this,' he looked down at the quiet little body It was the last confiding thrust that broke in his arms, 'all the pain of the world was Abelard's heart He looked down at the little Christ's cross?' draggled body, his mouth shaking. 'Thibault,' 'God's cross,' said Thibault. 'And it he said, 'do you think there is a God at all? goes on.' Whatever has come to me, I earned it But 'The Patripassian heresy,' muttered what did this one do?' Abelard mechanically. 'But. 0 God, ifit were Thibault nodded. bUe. Thibault. it must be. At least, there is 'I know,' he said. 'Only - I think God is something at the back of it that is bUe. And if in it too.' we could fmd it - it would bring back the Abelard looked up sharply. whole world.'9 'In it? Do you mean that it makes Him suffer, the way it does us?' The JX>int then so ably narrated by Waddell is this: Again Thibault nodded. God suffers. I shall not be concerned here with the 'Then why doesn't He stop it?' precise theories about how God may be thought to suffer. 'I don't know,' said Thibault. 'Unless­ Notwithstanding Abelard's "mechanical" description of unless it's like the Prodigal Son. I suppose the this view as "thePatripassian heresy," it seems to me that father could have kept him at home against his there are a variety of ways in which we can understand

Summer 1990 111 Between the Species The Servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood

God as suffering presence in the world that do not lose I see His blood upon the rose sight of divine omnipotence or indeed divine And in the stars the glory of His eyes, transcendence. Even so gospel-rentred a scholar as Tom His body gleams amid eternal snows, Torrance can be so nervous about an outright declara­ His tears fall from the skies. tion of divine passibility that he resolves the problem by simply affirming the contradiction: God "redeems our I see His face in every flower, passability in his impassability."10 But I want to leave The thunder and the singing of the birds that debate to one side, and suggest that the insight derived Are but His voice - and carven by His power from God's self-definition in Jesus Christ leads Rocks are His written words. inescapably to the view that God really and truly enters into suffering. This seems to me to be required by a fully All pathways by His feet are worn, incarnational theology in which God actually does what His strong heart stirs the ever-beating sea, is claimed - namely enter into the awfulness of the His crown is twinned with every thorn, human condition. His cross is every tree. 1S But like Thibault in the story, I want to go further. If it is true that God is the Creator and sustainer of the More satisfactory I think is Edith Sitwell's Still Falls whole world of life, then it is inconceivable that God is ~&lin. in which she pictures Christ's redeeming blood not also aco-sufferer in the world ofnonhuman creatures - like rain - continuing to fall on the wounds of the as well. Years of Christian tradition has obscured this suffering world. basic implication of the gospel narrative for at least two reasons. The first is because the scholastic tradition in He bears in his Heart all wounds, - those of particular has denied to animals any moral standing, so the light that died, that even ifthey did suffer, such suffering was notregarded The last faint spark as morally significant The second, and more obvious In the self-murdered heart, the wounds of the reason, is that later Christian tradition, especially manifest sad uncomprehending dark, in Cartesianism, simply denied that animals could feel The wounds of the baited bear, ­ pain at all. Even in this century notable theologians, The blind and weeping bear whom the such as Charles Raven, argued not just that animals did keepers beat not suffer like humans but rather doubted that they On his helpless flesh. . .the tears of the suffered at all. 11 hunted hare. And yet the idea that God is affected by the suffering of all creatures has not been lost on generations of saints Still falls in Rain- and poets. "Here I saw the great unity between Christ Then - 0 I leape up to my God: who pulles and us:' writes Julian of Norwich, "for when he was in medoune- pain,all creatures able to suffer pain suffered with him."12 See, see where Christ's blood strearnes in the It is written of Margery Kempe that "[w]hen she saw a frrmament: CruCifIX, or ifshe saw a man had a wound, or a beast, or It flows from the Brow we nailed upon the tree if a man beat a child before her, or smote a horse or Deep to the dying, to the thirsting heart another beast with a whip, she thought she saw Our Lord That holds the fires ofthe world, dark smirched beaten and wounded."13 In this Julian and Kempe may with pain have something in common with Cardinal Newman: At Caesar's laurel crown. "Think of your feelings at cruelty practiced upon brute animals,' writes Newman, "and you will gain the sort of Then sounds the voice ofone who like the heart feeling which the history of Christ's Cross and Passion of man ought to excite within yoU."14 Was once a child who among beasts was lain ­ Perhaps the best known expression of this idea in •Still do I love, still shed my innocent light, my poetry is found in Joseph Plunkett's I ~ ~ ~ Blood, for thee.' 16 !.I1m~~:

Between the Species 112 Summer 1990 The Servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood

This imaginative picture of Christ suffering all m pain and violence in the universe that God has made conveys - it seems to me - a truth which has simply I now turn to my third section. You may recall eluded the fonnal theorists and dogmaticians of the Thibault's reaction to the question of suffering. Not Christian tradition. Only very faintly, if at all, has the only did he hold that God suffered in all suffering church allowed this truth to be expressed in its liturgy. creatures, but also, reflecting upon that suffering in For example, in the Byzantine rite for Holy Saturday it both humans and animals, he had decided to become is held that "[t]he whole creation has altered by thy a priest "And then lsaw that God suffered too," he said. Passion; for all things suffered with thee, knowing 0 "And I thought I would like to be a priest" At first sight Lord, that thou holdest all things in unity." 17 But this this might appear to be a rather unusual reaction. It has splendid example, I fear, is one of the comparatively few to be said that many prevailing notions of priesthood exceptions to an otherwise almost wholly monolithic would fmd the relationship, if any, hard to fathom. Yet anthropocentrisrn of East and West it seems to me that 'Thibaultian theology" (if I may It seems to me that the recognition that suffering describe it so) is altogether coherent For if Christian exists in the nonhuman world requires us to grapple with priesthood derives its authority from Christ, as the the problem ofredemption for these spheres as well. Ifit focus of God's own self-definition, then it should is believed, in fidelity to the gospel story, that God truly also follow that priesthood is an extension of the enters into creaturely suffering, then there can be no good suffering, and therefore also redeeming, activity of God reason for excluding God's suffering presence from the in our world. realm of the nonhuman creation as well. Indeed, quite The one point I want to make here is this: The wider the reverse. For the issue is not how much suffering or to defmition of God's presence, and therefore also his what degree any being suffers, but that it suffers at all redeeming power, necessitates in turn a wider definition which is the underlying fact to be wrestled with. If as of priesthood. I am by no means the first person to Bonhoeffer once remarked, "only a suffering God can think of priesthood in wider, we might say ecological, help," it must follow that where there is suffering - no tenns. Alexander Pope in his "Essay on Man" describes matter whatever the kind and to what degree - God the divine commission to have dominion and to look suffers too. after the world in tenns of Christian priesthood:

The state of Nature was the reign of God. .. Man walked with beast, jointtenant of the shade; The same his table and the same his bed; No murder cloth'd him, and no murder fed... Unbrib'd, unbloody, stood the blameless priest: Heaven's attribute was Universal Care, And Man's prerogative to rule, but Spare.18

One of the fll'St to use the phrase "the World's High Priest" was Archbishop Leighton in the seventeenth century. He spoke of the priest in the Psalmist's sense of offering the praises of all creatures to their God:

All things indeed declare and speak His glory: the Heavens send it forth, and the Earth and Sea resound and echo it back. But His reasonable creatures hath He peculiarly framed both to take notice of His glory in all the rest, and to return it from and for all the rest in a more express and lively way.

Summer 1990 113 Between the Species The Servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood

And in this lower world it is Man alone yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, though that is made capable of observing the Glory of he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God, and of offering Him praises. He God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself taking expresses it well who calls man "the World's the form of a servant''23 It is this conception of the High Priest."19 omnipotence of God expressed in service which constitutes the decisive paradigm of how we should Such thoughts are similar to those expressed by exercise our lordship or dominion over the nonhuman Coleridge, who in his poem ''ToNature" anticipates some creation. If it is true that the power of God is most of the lyricism, if not the actual lyrics, of Teilhard de authentically expressed in the form of suffering service, Chardin's "Mass Upon the Altar of the World.''20 then we have to ask ourselves radical questions about how we are to understand our own lordship or dominion It may indeed be phantasy when I over nature in general and animals in particular. Ifwe Essay to draw from all created things are to have among us the mind ofthe one whose power is Deep, heartfelt, inward joy that closely clings: expressed in humility, in condescension, in reaching And trace in leaves and flowers that round out to the least of all, has not our own relationship me lie to the suffering nonhuman got to undergo a fundamental Lessons of love and earnest piety. re-examination? Almost alone among contemporary So let it be; and ifthe wide world rings theologians, Torrance articulates the connection In mock of this belief, to me it brings between the suffering world and the human world Nor fear, nor grief, nor vain perplexity. of priestly redemption. Torrance holds to a high view of humanity: So will I build my altar in the fields, And the blue sky my fretted dome shall be, From the perspective oftheology, man is clearly And the sweet fragrance that the wild made the focus point in the interrelations flower yields between God and the universe. He is given a Shall be the incense I will yield to Thee, special place within creation with a ruling and a Thee only God! and Thou shalt not despise priestly function to perform toward the rest of Even me, the priest of this poor sacrifice.21 created reality. AIl lines ofrationality and order, of purpose and fulfillment in the creation This notion ofsacrifice is taken up by George Herbert converge on him as man of God and man of in perhaps the best-known lines of all on this theme: science and depend upon his destiny.

Man is the world's High Priest he doth present But unlike others, Torrance does not stop here with the The sacrifice for all; while they below familiar theme of theological self-congratulation. He Unto the service mutter an assent, couples his high view of humanity with a strong view of Such as springs use that fall, and winds human responsibility: that blow.22 this priestly role of man must take on a Already we see the two familiar themes ofChristian redemptive form - that is how we should view priesthood expressing themselves: the priest is the one man's relationship to nature. It is his task to who "present(s)" or represents, and also the one who save the natural order through remedial and offers up "the sacrifice for all." But what does it mean to integrative activity, bringing back order where exercise a representative and sacrificial priesthood for there is disorder and restoring peace where there the whole created order? Who is representing whom, is disharmony.24 and who is sacrificing what? First, I want to suggest that the priest is the icon of In short: the representative function of priesthood is the Christ The priest is to present and represent the love of presentation and actualization of God's suffering service God focused in Jesus Christ "Have this mind among in the world.

Between the Species 114 Summer 1990 The Servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood

Second, I want to suggest that Christ-like priest­ "For the creation waits with eager longing for the hood is necessarily socrificial. But what or whom is to revealing of the sons of God," writes St Paul, "because be sacrificed? Archbishop Leighton, and others before the creation itself will besetfree...and obtain the glorious and after him, have understood this sacrificial work in liberty of the children of God.''29 What does it mean for terms of the offering of thanksgiving. "[I]n this lower humans to exercise a priestly role ofredemption? Quite world," writes Leighton, "it is Man alone that is made simply: itconcerns the releasing ofcreation from futility, capable of observing the glory of God, and ofoffering from suffering and pain and worthlessness. This, I want him praises." John Zizioulas, in a recent lecture, develops to suggest. is the divine wade of redemption to which the point further when he describes the priest as the one humans are called by the power of the Spirit It is the who "refers the world back to [its] Creator."lS Now, I liberation of creation itself from decay and suffering ­ do not want to deny that the offering of thanksgiving, perltaps in some ways the most fundamental liberation even on behalf of other creatures, is an important aspect of all. Such a perspective challenges at root the notion of priesthood - though I would have to say that it is that human responsibility in the world extends only to not clear to me that other creatures do not praise and serving and protecting our own species. Keith Ward's commune with theirCreatorin their own way. But leaving paraphrase of Genesis 1, namely that "man" is made a that question aside, it seems insufficient to allow "god" in creation and that creatures "should serve him" thanksgiving as the sole or major definition of what the needs rethinking.30 I suggest it should be that humans priest has to offer. given lordship or God-like power should serve creation. Neither do I think that the sacriftcial aspect of To reiterate: The inner logic of Christ's lordship is the priesthood is adequately or properly characterized in sacrifice of the higher for the lower; not the reverse. If terms of sacrificing other forms of life such as animals. the humility of God is costly and essential, why should "The killing of animals," writes , "when ours be less so? performed with the permission of God and by His Strangely enough it is Nietzsche who in a most command, is a priestly act ofeschatological character."26 uncharacteristic piece of writing seems to point in my But whatever may be the meaning and historical direction. ''The deeper minds of all ages have had pity significance of the forms of in the for animals," he writes, "because they suffer from life Old Testament- and about this I recognize that there is and have not the power to turn the sting of their suffering no little discussion27 - it seems to me very difficult against themselves, and understand their being indeed to reconcile the spirit of Christ-like sacrifice metaphysically.''31 According to Nietzsche, nature needs with animal sacrifice, and for two reasons. The first is the philosopher and the artist "to strive thereby for the that Christian sacrifice is primarily to do with the completionofnature." Butnature, according to Nietzsche, offering of life and especially love - rather than blood needs - not only the artist and the philosopher - but (although Good Friday is real enough), and second, also the saint the internal logic of Christ's sacriftce is the sacrifice of the higher for the lower and not the reverse. It does In him the ego is melted away, and the suffering not seem irrelevant to point out here that Jesus did not of his life is, practically, no longer felt as sacrifice animals and, arguably, by his cleansing of the individual, but as the spring of the deepest Temple indicates more than an ambivalent relationship sympathy and intimacy with all living to this practice.28 creatures...the attainment. at length, ofthe high But the central point I want to make here is this: The state of man after which all nature is striving, priestly work of sacrifice is best characterized by the that she may be delivered from herself.32 offering of self-costly love as exemplified by Christ himself. To make this point clearer, I want to draw on And it is concretely in the lives of many saints that another New Testament image, this time not that of we see prefigured this vision ofthe higher state ofnature Christ as the suffering servant in Phillippians but, to which Nietzsche refers. Of the many examples one rather, the image of the world in a state of child-birth could give I choose simply one example from St Isaac in Romans. The creation groans in travail because it is the Syrian: "What is a charitable heart?" he asks, and subject not by its own will to "bondage and decay." replies as follows:

Summer 1990 115 Between the Species The Servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood

It is a heart which is burning with love for the in the world. And third, a shift away from the idea whole creation, for men, for the birds, for the that the characteristics of priesthood - namely beasts, for the demons - for all creatures. He representation and sacrifIce - can be detailed in a who has such a heart cannot see or call to mind wholly human-centred way without involving the a creature without his eyes being filled with exercise of Christ-like power and service to the whole tears by reason of the immense compassion of creation. which seizes his heart; a heart which is softened The answer I want to give then to my opening and can no longer bear to see or learn from question is this: The uniqueness of humanity consists in others of any suffering, even the smallest pain its ability to become the servant species, to exercise its being inflicted upon a creature. That is why full humanity as co-participants and co-workers with such a man never ceases to pray for the God in the redemption ofthe world. This view challenges animals.... He will pray even for the reptiles, the traditional notions that the world was made simply moved by the infInite pity which reigns in the for human use or pleasure, that its purpose consists in hearts of those who are becoming united serving the human species, or that the world exists with God.33 largely in an instrumentalist relationship to human beings. Only the most tenacious holding on to the This last sentence goes some way to encapsulate the passibility of God may be sufficient to redeem us from point I want to stress: It is not just that sensitivity to our own profoundly arrogant humanistic conceptions of suffering is, or should be, a characteristic of priesthood our place in the universe. or saintliness, though I think it should be. It is rather It is important, however, to spell outthe implications that sensitivity to suffering (and with it compassion, of the doctrine of priestly service which I have espoused. empathy, mercy, loving forgiveness) are the hallmarks The first is that humanity can have no right to regard of priesthood itself. Only when we can say that we sentient creatures especially as simply means to their too have entered - however fleetingly - into the ends. Animals are not simply here for our use, and to use suffering ofChrist in the suffering ofall creatures can we animals at all incurs a very great responsibility. I agree claim to have entered into the priestly nature of our with the principle commended by Stephen R. L. Clark humanity. More even than that, for the goal of our that it is wrong to be the cause of avoidable injury. But I priestly humanity as I see it is not, as St Isaac reminds would, perhaps, go further. To make animals suffer for us, simply passive. We are to be active in prayer and human purposes is not just morally wrong, it is an act of deed to ensure that we reflect not justChrist-like feeling the gravest faithlessness. Humphry Primatt, who wrote for the suffering ofthe world butalso Christ-like healing. the most impressive theological treatise on animals, got We are not called to be mere spectators of the world of it right when he wrote that: suffering but active co-participants with God the Holy Spirit in its redemption. We may pretend to what religion we please; but cruelty is atheism. We may make our boast of IV Christianity, but cruelty is infidelity. We may trust to our orthodoxy, but cruelty is the worst I turn now to my fourth section. My starting point of heresies.34 was the question: In what way, ifany, are humans unique in the creation God has made? The argument I have 'That we now as a matterofcourse use sentientbeings sketched has been as follows: We need three shifts in our in ways that cause them harm and suffering as laboratory thinking. First, away from the idea that if God suffers at tools, as units of production in farming, as objects of all, this suffering takes place solely within the human sport and entertainment, is a sign that we have lost not species, to the view that God suffers in all suffering just a sense of our priestly humanity but a sufficient creatures. Second, a shift away from a narrow conception of the generosity of God revealed in Jesus conception of priesthood as largely or exclusively Christ All this is not to deny that we - indeed all nature concerned with God and humanity - to the view that - is caught up in the structures of disorder of which priesthood is a participation in God's redeeming presence Torrance speaks.35 Neitheris it to deny - in my favourite

Between the Species 116 Summer 1990 The Servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood

line from - that a clean conscience is weaken concern for the healing of suffering humanity. a figment of the imagination or as he actually puts it "an Nevertheless, it is no longer clear to me that we can invention ofthe devil. ''36 Neither is it to suppose that we make an absolute distinction between one kind of can easily tum to live in some Edenite hannony with suffering and another, either that ofa member ofanother other creatures. I accept that we are compromised and class, race, sex or - I would add - species. Neither is it that we have difficult choices to make. clear to me that we can in each and every situation claim Nevertheless, I want to suggest that it is here we that human suffering is more important than any other may sense the possibility of living other than we do, kind of suffering. Indeed, I want to suggest that the that we should reflect upon the fact that Christian attempt to place human well-being in a special and priesthood is sacrificial, costly priesthood. It cannot be absolute category of its own is one of the reasons why sufficient merely to have a negative vision of what we other earthly creatures - indeed, the earth itself ­ should do to prevent suffering in the world. We need remains in a desperate state of travail, a travail so great positive vision of how we can take upon ourselves the that its destruction - in part. ifnot as a whole - seems suffering of the world and transform it by the power of inevitable. In other words, exclusive moral preoccu­ the Holy Spirit. We need to experiment in ways of pation with our own species is part of the problem itself liberation rather than always assuming that human rather than its solution. We should face the fact that interest, narrowly conceived, always comes frrst To years of Christian anthropocentricity (of a bad sort) has give but one controversial example: It may be that the helped lead us to the environmental crisis we now truly Christian view of the morality of experimentation encounter. In short, we have to redress the balance and begins not by asking how much suffering we can appreciate that humans are not just linked to nature, we are legitimately inflict upon animals but rather should we part of nature. not elect to bear for ourselves whatever ills may flow from not experimenting upon animals rather than using our power to exploit the weak in our own favour. All this has an urgency which in previous generations we failed to appreciate. For our ruthless, un-gentle treatment ofthe natural world has ushered in a cognizance ofcertain limits to exploitation. Extinct species, like dead nature itself, can no longer be exploited. It seems to me that Behind these eyes Christians have an opportunity in the present circum­ lies the dlwn of lime. stances to show what it means to live as though we believe You mike me I monster in a generous loving God by living that generosity towards or I Joke. nonhuman creatures. Lock me up so you un sure Ind Ilu,h. I look blck with ,relt Sldness v for I know your PISt Ind I see your destiny. I now turn to my fifth, and final, section and briefly I do not hlte you. consider four objections to my argument I 1m ,entle; I 1m 10YII. The first queries my whole train of argument by I blVe strenGth suggesting that I have simply overlooked the powerful beyond this ,llnt's body. "humans come first" tradition within Christianity. I 1m stronG in spirit. According to the Linzey view, it is claimed, we shall end My solemn laze revells the truth. up being more concerned about suffering hens than When you murder me suffering humans. you Ire killin, you. I agree with this objection if it means that the When you imprison my soul suffering of humans - as well as the suffering of non­ you destroy your future. humans - should be the subject of the serving and sacrificial priesthood. Nothing in my argument should Kath leen Malley

Summer 1990 117 Between the Species The Servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood

The second objection is that I have effectively one and the same time. The best, perhaps the only, model reduced theology to by simply redefining the we can have is that of the incarnation itself. For if it is essential characteristics ofpriesthood in ethical tenos. possible for God in Christ to enter into the suffering of Some fonos of this objection have my sympathy. the world, and yet transform that suffering into joy, why John Zizioulas has recently stressed the limitations of a should this capacity be limited in time and space to one response to the ecological crisis which simply places all event only? I posit that Thibault was right What is seen its hq>es in ethics. "Whether enforced by State legislation in Christ is one instance of the perpetual transfonoation or taughtorinstructed by Churches, academic institutions, of suffering happening throughout time. etc., it is ethics that seems to contain the hopes of The fourth objection holds - perhaps on a lighter humankind in the present situation," he writes. And yet note - that if we take the view that the higher should (he reminds us) "ethics, whether enforced or free, have a greater concern for the lower, we shall end up presupposes other more existential motivations in order having as much - if not more - concern for asparagus to function.'0J7 It is difficult to deny that Zizioulas is or cabbage or carrots than for human beings. right here. The appeal to ethics, by itself, is insufficient I do not think so. For the stress in my argument has Yet itis also very understandable. Forcenturies Christians been on suffering creation. Despite popular notions of have kept our relations with the nonhuman out of the talking plants and sentient , there is actually ethical sphere, and so it is perhaps notaltogethersurprising no evidence that such creatures experience pain. Though, that their inclusion is now seen as a priority. of course, there may be some areas of difficulty and However, I am not one of those who think that doubt, Ican see no good reason why these should prevent salvation lies in ethics alone. Spiritually unenlightened us from behaving in a priestly manner to those beings humanity - especially one that is over-eonfident of its whose capacity for suffering is beyond reasonable doubt. own humanism - can be a causeofmoral darkness. The That we may, however, discover sensitivity and approach I have outlined is far from naive ethicism. But outside the human species - in what are to us unlikely it may be construed as an attack upon what we have had place - only reinforces the fact that God has created an a surplus ofin the Christian tradition, namely non-ethical amazingly sensitive and delicate world and that wherever or anti-ethical theology. I suggest that we need a way of we go we should tread gently. combining the two - theology and ethics - in a much It is important, however, that my argument from clearer way than heretofore. Moral theology is a more suffering should be understood. I do not deny that there acceptable tenn; ascetical ormystical theology even better. are other important characteristics, apart from sentiency, But, at a deeper level, what this objection signifies is which should be valued or conserved. My stress here is a divorce between divine activity and human response that the special capacity for suffering which we share which is starkly perilous at the present time. The with so many nonhuman creatures is theologically theological challenge is how we can understand the divine significant if we subscribe to the doctrine of a suffering, work of passibility and redemption already operative passible God. God may be injured or harmed in creation within creation through the work ofthe Holy Spirit When in a variety of ways - at least conceivably - but none we have such a conception we shall best be able to fully more directly than through the infliction of suffering. appreciate the necessity of human response to, indeed, In conclusion, you may recall Abelard's reaction to participation in, that work itself. Thibault's doctrine of divine passibility. "The The third objection takes us back to my initial thesis Patripassian heresy," he muttered "mechanically." "But, concerning the passibility of God. How can God suffer o God, if it were true.. .It must be. At least, there is eternally and also at the same time offer us liberation something at the back of it that is true." Then Abelard from suffering which is the central hope of the Gospel? went on: "And ifwe could fmd it - it would bring back In short If God suffers in creation, how can God also the whole world." At first sight it might seem an redeem us from that suffering? amazingly presumptious claim that the recovery of the Again, I have no little sympathy for this objection, insight of divine passibility could lead to a recovery of which I once held and defended myself. Butthe weakness the whole world. And yet is it purely coincidental that of the argument - it now seems to me - is in its view its contrary view, namely the doctrine of divine that God cannot both suffer and redeem that suffering at impassibility, has triumphed and flourished in Christian

Between the Species 118 Summer 1990 The Servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood

centuries in which theology about the world - and 8. Baker, ibid, p. 54. especially ourresponsibility for it - seems to have almost entirely evaporated? It may be that here, as elsewhere, 9. Helen Waddell. Peter Abelard (London: Granada our doctrine of God has been much more significant for Publishing, 1972), pp. 194/6 the salvation of the world than we might have thought possible. Abelard, I feel sure, would have approved of 10. Thomas Torrance, 1MTrinitarian Faith (Edinburgh: T. the mystical theology contained in these moving lines & T. Clark, 1988), p. 185 f. from Schweitzer's autobiography: "I could not but feel 11. Charles Raven. The Creator Spirit (London, 1927) p. with a sympathy full of regret all the pain that I saw 120; cited and discussed in A. Richard Kingston 'Theodicy around me, not only that of men, but that of the whole andAnimal Welfare" inAndrew Linzey andTom Regan (005.), creation. From this community of suffering I have never Animals and ChristianitY: A Book Qf Readings (London: tried to withdraw myself. It seemed to me a matter of SPCK and New York: Crossroads, 1989), p. 77. course that we should all take our share of the burden of suffering which lies upon the world:'38 12. Julian of Norwich. Showings, ET and introduction by Edmund Collage and James Walsh (New York: Paulist Press, NQ1ES 1978), pp. 130/1.

1. James Barr, "The Image of God in the Book of 13. Margery Kempe, in llim. cited in Ambrose Agius, Genesis - A Study in Terminology," Bulletin of the John God's Animals (London: Catholic Study Circle for Animal Rylands Library, 51, I, (Autumn 1968) pp. 12/13. Barr Welfare, 1970), p. 46. appears to reject absolutely any "referential meaning" of the phrase "image of God." He writes that there is "no reason to 14. Newman, in MaisieWard, Young Mr. Newman, p. 350, believe that this writer (P) has in his mind any defmite idea and cited in Agius, ibid, p. 46. about the content or the location ofthe image of God (ibid)." Such a view should not obscure, however, the possibility 15. Joseph Plunkett, "I See His Blood Upon the Rose" in of developing an understanding of the "image" in a way Andrew Linzey and (eds.), The Song of Creation: that links it with the further notion of "dominion", and which An Anthology Qf Poems in Celebration of ~(London: may enhance the view of the priestly role of humanity which I Marshall Pickering, 1988), p. 132. have advocated here. 16. Edith Sitwell, "Still Falls in Rain" in Linzey and Regan, 2. Robert Runcie, in 'Theology, the University and the Song Qf Creation. ibid, p. 132. ModernWorld" inPaul A. B. Clarke and Andrew Linzey (005.), Theology, the University and the Modern World (London: 17. The Byzantine Rite, verse from the Mattins of Holy Lester Crook Academic Publishing, 1988), pp. 19(20. Saturday in The Lenten Triodion. ET by Mother and Bishop Kallistos, (London: Faber and Faber, 1978), cited and 3. Desmond Morris, The Naked ~ (London: Corgi discussed in A. M. AIlehin. The Dynamic ofTradition(London: Books. 1969), p. 210. Darton, Longman andTodd, 1981) and anthologised inAndrew Linzey and Tom Regan (005.), Compassion for Animals: 4. Aristotle, The Politics, ET by T. A. Sinclair Prayers and Readings (London: SPCK, 1988), p. 86. (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1985), I, viii, p. 79. 18. Alexander Pope, "Essay on Man," extract in Linzey 5. Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, ET by the English and Regan, Song Qf Creation. ibid, p. 33. Dominican Fathers (Benzinger Brothers, 1928), Third Book, Part II, Chp. CXII. Extract in Tom Regan and 19. Archbishop Leighton. cited and discussed in Michael (005.), Animal ~ and Human Obligations (New Jersey: Paternoster, Man: The World's HWl Priest (Oxford: SLG Press. Prentice-Hall, 1976), pp. 56-9. 1976), p. 7 f. I am grateful to Paternoster for the inspiration to write this paper. 6. See Andrew Linzey, Christianity and the Rights Qf Animals (London: SPCK, 1987), p. 18. 20. Cf. "It was during this expedition. in the stillness of the vast solitude of the Ordos desert, that one Easter Sunday 7. John Austin Baker, Travels .in Oudamovia (London: he finished the mystical and philosophical poem, Mass YW!l Faith Press, 1976), pp. 53/4. the altar Qf the World. Alone before God, he prays with lyrical

Summer 1990 119 Between the Species The Servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood

fervour: 'Christ of glory, hidden power stirring in the heart of 28. H. H. Rowley goes as far as to suggest that "all the matter, glowing centre in which the urmumbered strands ofthe animal sacrifices oftheTemple were abolished for the Church" manifold are knit together; strength inexorable as the world and that in so doing it "repudiated a part of the inheritance of and warm as life; you whose brow is of snow, whose eyes are Judaism." The Biblical Doctrine of Election (London: of fire, whose feet are more dazzling than gold poured from Lutterworth Press, 1950), p. 163. .. the fmnace; you whose hands hold captive the stars; you, the first and last, the living, the dead, the reborn; you, who gather 29, Romans 8: 19 - 22 (RSV). up in your superabundant oneness every delight, every taste, every energy, every phase of existence, to you my being cries 30. KeithWard. ThePromise (London: SPCK, 1980), p. 2. out with a longing as vast as the universe: for you indeed are my Lord and my God.''' Pierre Leroy, "Teilhard de Chardin; 31. Nietzsche, Thoughts Out of Season, ET by Adrian The Man" inTeilhard de Chardin, Le Milieu DiY.in. edited by Collins (Edinburgh: T. N. Foulis, 1909), p. 149. I am grateful Bernard Wall (London: Fontana Books, 1964), p. 26. See to TIdi Clarke for this reference. also Teilhard de Chardin, fumn of the Universe, ET by N. M. Wildiers (London: Fontana Books, 1970). 32. Nietzsche, ibid, p. 154.

21. Coleridge, ''To Nature" in Linzey and Regan, Song Qf 33. St. Isaac the Syrian cited in Vladimir Lossky, The Creati!m, ibid, p. 68. Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Ef by the Fellow­ ship of St Alban and St Sergius (Cambridge: James Clarke, 22. George Herbert, "Providence" inTheWorks ofGeorge 1973) p. 111; also cited and discussed in A. M. Allchin, The ~ ed. with comm. by F. E. Hutchinson (Oxford: The World ~ ! Wedding: Explorations in Christian Spirituality Clarendon Press, 1967) p. 117, and cited and discussed in the (London: Darton. Longman andTodd, 1978)p. 85; also extract Paternoster, ibid, p. 8 f. from Lossky in Linzey and Regan, Animals and Christianity. ibid, pp. 34/6. 23. Philippians 2: 5-7 (RSV). This Christological argument is developed atlengthinAndrew Linzey, ''The Place ofAnimals 34. Humphry Primatt, A Dissertation on the Duty Qf Mer£)' in Creation - A Christian View" inTom Regan (ed.), Animal and the Sin of Cruelty !Q Brute Animals (Edinburgh: T. Sacrifices: Religious PefSlltlCtives Q!l the ~ QfAniIm!l! in Constable, 1776) p. 288; also extract in Animals and Science (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986), Christianity, ibid, pp. 127/130. pp. 115/148. 35. Torrance drawing upon scientific models offers a most 24. Thomas Torrance, Divine and Contingent Order satisfying interpretation of natural evil, see, ibid, pp. 113/128. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. 129/130 (my emphasis). 36. Schweitzer, Civilization and Ethics, ET by C. T. Campion (London: Allen and Unwin, 1967), p. 221. 25. John Zizioulas, "Preserving God's Creation. Three Lectures on Theology and Ecology" in King's Theological 37. Zizioulas, ibid, p. 1. Review. XU, 1, (Spring, 1989), p. 3. 38. Schweitzer, My Life andThought: An Autobiography. 26. Barth, Church Dogmatics, III/4, ~ Doctrine of ET by C. T. Campion (London: Allen and Unwin, 1933), Creation, edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance pp.279/80. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961), p. 355. In context, Banh is discussing the morality of killing animals for food. His conclusion is revealing. Meat eating can only be justified in I am grateful to Dr Peter J, Wexler of the the meantime between creation and consummation. University ofEssex, who kindly readan earlier represents a "wanton anticipation of what is draft of this paper and gave me the benefit of described by Is. II and Rom. 8 as existence in the new aeon for which we hope," pp. 355/6 n. his comments. I am happy to acknowledge his help without thereby identifying him as 27. See, for example, FrancesYoung, The Use ofSacrificial the source of the views I express or the errors Ideas in Greek Christian Writers from the New Testament to I commit. John Chrysostom, Patristic Monograph Series, no. 5, (Philadelphia: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979), pp. 54 ff.

Between the Species 120 Swruner 1990